I wonder how the police have managed to prove that the video was made before the no-balls were bowled?

The police haven't proved anything yet.

But if it comes to proving it, they'll start with the content of the video itself, from which it's blindingly obvious that it pre-dated the no balls.

They'll then see what Majeed has had to say, and what the players have had to say. The suggestions are that they're not going to deny that the tape was made before the no-balls. The police will also have evidence from the guy who made the video. There may also be electronic evidence demonstrating when the tape was made, and evidence from others at the paper who saw it prior to the day in question. But frankly given the contents of the video, you hardly need that additional stuff.

It is just too unthinkable that they got this guy Majid to say all this AFTER events happened and set himself up to be prosecuted... As the saying goes, when you hear the hoofs beat, think of horses, not some avatar animals..

We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.

Surely all the police have to do is to prove the date of the video as to whether the players are guilty or not...

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

1) Had double pneumonia as a kid, as did my twin sis. Doctors told my parents to pray that we lived through the night. Dad said **** off, I'm an atheist, you ****s better save my kids, etc. Then prayed anyway.

Pretty easy one, that. If the video was made after the no-balls were bowled, why was the players' agent predicting when the no-balls were going to happen - ie talking about what was going to happen, in the future tense? Unless the players' agent was setting them up in a way that was going to get himself in a world of trouble, which seems pretty implausible to me.

There's some real clutching at straws going on here. Predictable, of course, but that's what it is: clutching at straws.

you are getting your panties in a twist, this is not clutching at straws, this is asking for due process - there is no reason for the PCB to automatically accept the video, ofcourse it looks bad and the majority of people have made their minds up, none the less the issue of due process and verification remains....

you are getting your panties in a twist, this is not clutching at straws, this is asking for due process - there is no reason for the PCB to automatically accept the video, ofcourse it looks bad and the majority of people have made their minds up, none the less the issue of due process and verification remains....

You do that behind closed doors. You don't ramble on it about it endlessly when confronted by the media, it's just utterly amateurish.